It also recommended changes to make defamation laws better reflect the “changing media landscape” and to better deal with content posted on social media, blogs and other online publications.

But the review also left the door open for changes that would allow corporations to sue for defamation, recommending a national review “to determine whether the capacity of corporations to sue for defamation should be amended”.

The rules around defamation have been coordinated at a national level since 2005 after an overhaul of the laws.

At the time the NSW Bar Association argued that all corporations should be able to sue for defamation “on the basis that corporate reputations are also critically important, and are a legitimate interest that needs to be protected”.

But an expert panel decided to prevent large for-profit corporations from being able to sue for defamation because their “resource capacity” could “deter publication of material” in the public interest.

#MeToo has led to an asphyxiating vortex of litigation | Richard Ackland

Read more

It also found that “reputation” was principally a personal right and that corporations could use other measures such as complaining to the Press Council.

But the NSW review has suggested the law should be reconsidered. The report states that while the current law “continues to be appropriate”, states should “reflect further on the question with a view to either reconfirming their position, or potentially amending”.

It included a recommendation that the states “determine whether the capacity of corporations to sue for defamation should be amended”. The NSW review pointed to the example of the US, New Zealand, Canada and the UK where corporations can sue.

In the UK corporations can sue for defamation but must meet the “serious harm” benchmark.

The review recommended changes to defamation laws to bring them up to date with the digital media landscape.

In a statement the NSW attorney general, Mark Speakman, said the laws needed to be more “tech-savvy”.

“There’s been a huge rise in defamation cases involving publications on social media sites in recent years, which is why we need the laws to be more tech-savvy,” he said.

Comedians say case of sued performer is threat to the art

Read more

Along with the serious harm provision, the review recommended the states consider whether a “single publication” rule should be adopted to limit the period within which a plaintiff can bring a defamation action from the date of the first publication, rather than from each subsequent publication.

It also recommended introducing “safe harbour” and “takedown” provisions so that the hosts of digital content were protected from liability for content produced by third parties.

Speakman will urge federal, state and territory attorneys general to help bring Australia’s defamation laws up to date with the “cyber-age” at a meeting in Perth on Friday.

“It is important all Australian jurisdictions work closely to ensure we strike the right balance between freedom of expression, publication of material in the public interest and protecting individual’s reputations,” he said in a statement.